AFSA and our partners recently negotiated a streamlined application process for pastured pig and poultry production... however, during the final stages in planning and negotiation, state administrators suddenly removed non-chicken poultry--ducks, quail, turkey, squab....from the proposed streamline application process on the basis of "biosecurity" concerns.

AFSA commissioned a report by Robert G. Wallace, PhD to unpack the presumptions underlying removing non-chicken poultry. Wallace asks, "What are the reasons? Are they legitimate? Do such decision trees represent something other than scientific criteria? Are alternative policy positions possible?"

"Does the discrepancy between how industrial and regenerative farmers are regulated depend on the political power by which agribusiness is able to impose the worst social costs of production upon Australian states and its citizens with little consequence (Halpin and Martin 1999, Dibden and Cocklin 2007)? Does that power include a kind of gaslighting out of a moral economy of agribusiness’s control, forcing smallholders to carry the load (and blame) for biosecurity problems little of their making and emerging at scales far greater in industrial production (East 2007, Bryant and Garnham 2014, Moyle et al. 2016)? It increasingly appears that the largely unfounded notion wild waterfowl and pasture poultry in Australia represent inherent gateways through which industrial poultry production is placed at risk is presently a global go-to fallacy, deployed across multiple countries internationally, and aimed at redirecting attention away from intensive production’s role in driving the evolution and spread of newly emergent disease (Engering et al. 2013, Wallace 2016b, 2017)."

Peter Hunt, a Weekly Times reporter, has treated the concerns of Victoria’s pastured livestock farmers over proposed planning reforms with total contempt, calling them ‘delusional.’

This seems unsurprising given Hunt spent many years in a policy role with the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), a body whose reputation for attacking small-scale farmers is increasing.

Pastured pig and poultry farmers have rejected factory farming and are instead growing animals outside in the fresh air. They devote their farms to growing healthy animals in ethical and ecologically-sound ways.

In an op ed in last week’s Weekly Times, Mr Hunt trotted out the drivel the Victorian Government is seeking to rectify when he called pastured livestock farms ‘intensive’.

Hunt went on to make spurious claims about the biosecurity risks of free-range poultry and pigs. However, it is sheds full of thousands of animals living with their own excrement that are the real source of a massive public health threat – those sheds are ‘food for flu’ as evolutionary biologist Rob Wallace states.

The Government’s attempt to reform the planning provisions has fallen short of the 2016 recommendations of the Animal Industries Advisory Committee (AIAC). The AIAC called for the scheme to recognise the lower risk small-scale pastured pig and poultry farms pose, and for planning controls to be commensurate with that risk.

The AIAC called for small-scale pastured pig and poultry farms to be treated like other grazing production systems.

The AIAC went through an independent public consultation. However, once handed to Agriculture Victoria, the ongoing consultation was limited to peak bodies for intensive agriculture – Australian Pork Limited (APL), Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), and the VFF, and a handful of cattle farmers. There was no representation for pastured pig and poultry farmers, and Ag Vic came back with a draft that sees all pig and poultry farms with more than 200 birds or three sows needing a permit.

The Government, the VFF, and the likes of Hunt keep repeating that all pig and poultry farms have always needed to get a permit, however, they fail to acknowledge that requirement was only recently established by a VCAT case in 2015. This was a trigger for the need to reform the planning scheme. Calling a farm with 100 pigs on 40 acres ‘intensive’ was deemed inappropriate, and the controls applied incommensurate with the risk.

Hunt’s track record of sloppy and inaccurate journalism does the public interest no favours, and his disdain for pastured pig and poultry farmers tells where his allegiances lie.

The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) is calling on the NSW Government to secure a future that encourages regenerative farmers by ensuring regulatory burdens on small-scale pastured livestock producers are commensurate with the low risk they pose to their communities.

The Government states that the aim of its proposed planning reforms are to ‘support the development and management of intensive livestock agriculture’ through:

Exemptions for small-scale livestock operators in non-sensitive locations; and

Clarification of the definitions and thresholds for intensive livestock agriculture requiring development consent.

The Government claims that the ‘proposed amendments will illustrate a clear difference between extensive and intensive agriculture land uses, making it easier for industry and applicants.’

And yet by conflating all sizes and types of pig and poultry farms into one category, the package of reforms released by the NSW Government presents a major risk to the future of small-scale free-range pig and poultry farming.

Under the new reforms, all pig and poultry farms, regardless of size or production model, will be considered ‘intensive livestock agriculture.’ A farm with 25 sows on pasture will be called ‘intensive’ just like a shed with 2000 sows inside.

While the Government has retained thresholds that enable an exemption from the requirement for development consent – for those farms with less than 1000 birds or 200 pigs or 20 sows – the introduction of a 500m setback from neighbouring dwellings or environmentally sensitive areas that triggers a Development Application is a major barrier for pastured pig and poultry farming on small acreages.

AFSA supports regulation of farming that protects human and animal health and preserves environment and amenity. We call on the NSW Government to amend the proposals to address the following key concerns:

Revise the definitions around extensive (outdoors on pasture) as opposed to intensive (confined in sheds) animal husbandry. Small-scale, low-risk farms should be excluded from the definition of ‘intensive’ or allowed in the definition of ‘extensive.’

Reduce the proposed 500m setback (buffer zone) between animals and neighbouring dwellings to allow the operation of a pastured pig or poultry farm on a smaller or narrow block without requirement for a Development Application. Any setback should take into account stocking rates and rotational grazing practices undertaken by most small-scale regenerative farmers.

The definition of intensive pig or poultry farms should only apply to farms with a stocking rate that clearly presents a higher risk to environment and amenity, not an arbitrary number of animals unassociated with land size or production model.

Pastured pig and poultry farms must be unshackled from the negative environmental and social consequences[1] of their industrial counterparts and treated independently, because they simply do not pose a significant risk to environment or amenity.

Penny Kothe, pastured pig and poultry farmer and owner of Caroola Farm in Mulloon, notes that, ‘a 500m buffer means that almost all small-scale pig and poultry farms would require costly council approvals. This could cause the death of truly free-range pig and poultry farmers. It will place limits on our future ability to farm in a more sustainable and ethical way. These reforms will definitely be a deterrent to new farmers, at a time when we desperately need to be encouraging people to enter the industry.’

Cameron Mynott of Australian Pasture Fresh says, ‘it is imperative for the future of sustainable, ethical, regenerative farming, that small-scale farmers be able to run under a common-sense, outcomes-based legislation. From a risk mitigation perspective, applying measures and controls to all farms irrespective of their actual size and operations is both counter-intuitive and counterproductive. It has been proven, globally, that animals raised in a pastured environment, with rotational grazing and mobile infrastructure, create none of the issues or risks that the proposed legislation seeks to mitigate.’

‘Applying a simple to understand head to hectare ratio to further define "intensive" is not only fair and reasonable, but will ensure NSW does not see the devastation to Australian family farms that Victoria is currently experiencing. It's heartbreaking to speak to other farmers who are having to close their operations down due to legislative burdens.’

State governments must take heed of increased community expectations for ethical and ecologically-sound produce, and support those who farm this way to meet the growing demand. This is especially pertinent at a time when Australia faces a changing climate and dwindling resources. The current draft policies would deter future farmers from entering farming, at a time when Australia has fewer farmers than ever before.

AFSA President Tammi Jonas states, ‘A food sovereign and secure future depends on appropriate planning controls that preserve farm land in perpetuity. Legislation should also protect the rights of all people to access nutritious and culturally-appropriate food produced in ethical and ecologically-sound ways, and their right to democratically determine their own food and agriculture systems.’

Small-scale pastured pig farmers have concerns about whether Australia Pork Limited (APL) genuinely represents them. It is a matter of material interest to all pig farmers given the compulsory levy paid per carcass directly to APL. We have been alerted to a number of farmers (in addition to me) who have asked APL to please show how the organisation is actively supporting small-scale farms, but to date we have had only platitudes.

For some years now, the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) has been monitoring APL’s support for small-scale farmers, and what we have witnessed is in fact a systematic campaign to undermine the efforts of the growing number of small-scale pastured pig farmers.

Examples of APL’s efforts against small-scale growers include:

APL has given evidence in multiple VCAT cases against small-scale pastured pig farms, and in some cases taken the side of large-scale intensive pig producers against small-scale pastured farms, such as in the case of intensive producer and former head of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Pig Group John Bourke brought against small-scale free-range growers Freeland Pork. Given APL’s claims that it represents all Australian pig producers, there is an obvious conflict of interest where it supports one producer against another in legal proceedings.

APL has made unsolicited phone calls to local councils, urging officers to pursue small-scale growers and require them to apply for permits for intensive animal husbandry.

Since the 2015 VCAT ruling against Happy Valley Free Range which was heavily influenced by APL’s testimony against the small-scale farm, APL has taken the position that all pig farms should be treated the same under state planning provisions in spite of small-scale pastured pig farmers’ stance that they should be treated as other grazing systems with supplemental feed. In the case of the recent work to revise the Victorian Planning Provisions by the Animal Industries Advisory Committee (AIAC), the Committee noted:

Australian Pork Limited supported all pork producers being required to obtain approvals to ensure operations can benefit from ‘good siting, design and management’. It considered that departing from the current definitions of extensive and intensive animal husbandry is seen as a step towards transparency and planning certainty.

In taking this position, APL advocated to remove the label ‘intensive’ from large-scale intensive growers as well as from small-scale extensive growers, rendering them nearly indistinguishable in the proposed new provisions.

The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) is a membership-based organization working for everyone’s right to access nutritious and culturally-appropriate food grown in ethical and ecologically-sound ways, and their right to collectively determine their own food and agriculture systems. We have over 700 individual and organisational members, at least a third of whom are small-scale farmers.

We call on APL to explain:

Why it is actively working against the interests of small-scale pig farmers in its work around planning and regulation; and

Why small-scale pig farmers should be forced to pay a levy to a body working actively against their interests.

In the interest of transparency and accountability, we write this demand in public, and ask that APL make a public response.

Why should small-scale pastured pork and poultry farms be treated like intensive sheds while cattle feedlots of 1000 cattle do not require a permit? The Victorian Government's proposed reforms to planning controls for animal industries could mean the collapse of pastured pigs and poultry farms in Victoria.

Join us in demanding change by sharing a photo of your pastured poultry or pork operation and calling on ministers to support scale-appropriate planning controls that encourage rather than hinder regenerative and ethical farming in Victoria.

We demand that small-scale pastured pig and poultry farms be treated under the Farming Zone like other low-risk grazing systems that rely on supplemental feed such as the majority of Victorian beef and dairy cattle.